Here are two VDH pieces in today’s NRO:
“We must prepare for a number of paradoxes that might arise. For instance, do we attack from the air targets on the ground, given that Qaddafi’s ongoing strategy likely will be to use tanks and artillery, often at night and among civilian landscapes, to beat back the rebels? (I assume that Qaddafi can still quite handily defeat the rebels without jets and gunships.) Does the no-fly zone, in the fashion of its previous counterpart over Iraq, escalate to more offensive tactics, such as taking out depots or armor concentrations, given that we have raised the ante and don’t want our newfound allies to lose with their advantages of Western air cover?”
Our President has already stated that we will not be putting troops on the ground. So unless he’s engaging in a bold piece of military deception (!) he just laid out a significant self-imposed boundary. One might have wished that he hadn’t made that remark, and kept the threat of a landing in the background. Now, Khaddafy knows what he doesn’t have to worry about.
So just exactly how far are we going to go? Only up to a point and then no farther? What if that point isn’t far enough to give the rebels an edge– because that is essentially what we have undertaken? Do we go up to that point and then say, Nah, it was fun while it lasted but now it’s not worth the effort. Easy for us to say when we don’t have to face the post-failure reckoning. “No mercy,” remember?
“When you set out to take Vienna:”
“Instead, we ignore congressional approval, broadcast to our enemies all sorts of self-imposed limitations on our use of force, have not defined the mission as the removal of Qaddafi, on day three are promising less rather than more military force, have no clue what is to replace him, and seem uncomfortable with a leadership role that would define victory and take the necessary measures to achieve it.”
So as not to be called smarmy and dishonest, let me state my original position. I’m not sure this was a good idea, but I’m pretty damn sure it was a much better idea about two weeks ago, and I’m nearly fucking certain that it hasn’t magically transformed into a great idea. The whole thing seems to have been done on an ad-hoc basis. We lacked the naval presence in the Med that normally would have provided a glowering menace as well as a means for instant action. Now I have a sinking feeling that we’re trying to make up for that void of power and presence. Unfortunately, the window of opportunity is passed.
As Mr Hanson says, I do hope I’m wrong. (Don’t confuse skepticism with any sort of regard for Khaddafy; I’d love to see him dead. And don’t think I’ve got a new-found pacifism, because I do love a good solid thumping of a deserving target. I happen to prefer military action to be sudden, chaotic, ruthless, blindingly violent and prosecuted with single-minded ferocity.) However, we’re in it now and I hope we go for the win. Whereas we didn’t have a real stake in it before, we have a lot riding on it now.
“Mission creep alert!” What comes next, when the media cries, “Something has to be done”, and Senators McCain, Graham, and Kerry demand that “Something has to be done”, that is short of debate on the floor of the Senate that ends in a vote to either go to war or not? How well does Congress, the intelligence community, the President, and the military understand the tribal dynamics of Libya? Then there is the trashcan lid theory of deposing dictators, especially apropos in the Middle East. A trashcan lid is dirty, ugly and smells nasty, but it serves to keep things that are dirtier, uglier, and smellier in place.
The final question for the US is two-fold: (1) What do we do with the vacuum left behind if we take Gadaffi out, and (2) If we don’t take Gadaffi out, and the rebles lose anyway, how do we gracefully exit? How do we explain more filled body bags to the grieving parents?
A final thought: Invade another Muslim nation with oil; what could possibly go wrong?
Beyond all of Bill’s questions, has the POTUS left the US on the hook to pay for NATO operations? When has the US not underwritten NATO’s contributions to just about everything? Or is NATO in an incredibly stronger financial position than it’s been in years?
Killing Kadaffi or however you spell his name is okay with me, but it seems like Obama has taken a half-ass approach to the situation. My preference would have been for the other countries to fly the air missions and for us to use the navy’s Tomahwk missiles with maybe some air refueling support. Frankly, even before 9/11 the Middle East and the Islamic Extremism coming from there was becoming an increasing threat to us and the rest of the world. This is a long war and hopefully we are getting in touch with the more moderate Muslims protesting against their governments.
Where does Saudi Arabia fall in your long war?
Most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, the country’s an oppressive monarchy that tortures and kills its own citizens, and the Saud family finances religious schools that teach hatred of the West.
Are they a “moderate” Muslim country?
GRRRRR:
Have you ever been to Saudi Arabia? I have no love love for the Saudi Monarchy and hope we put pressure on them while lending support to those moderates that are trying to peacefully change that Kingdom.
You type a lot with out actually imparting any profound wisdom.
LMAO, no I’ve never been to Saudi Arabia. Is that a prequalification for having a discussion about their role in U.S. foreign policy? I’ve never sniffed glue, either. Does that mean I can’t talk about Republicans?
What do you mean, “put pressure on them”? You mean invade, right? (Surely you don’t mean appeasement!!!) For every dollar of gas you buy, some of that goes to fund Muslim extremism, which we’re supposed to be at war with, courtesy of the Saud family and its Wahabi schools.
By the way, I didn’t know we were swapping profound wisdom. Do share, please! I can’t wait!
On a lighter note, has anybody here seen Battle for Los Angeles? What did you think of it and how the Marines were represented? Was it basically realistic? I thought it was a pretty good movie, but thought the story kind of kept stopping and starting.
A realistic movie of alien invasion? Ha, just pulling your leg a bit. :)
GRRRRR:
Haven’t seen the film (don’t hit the theaters much these days) BUT “Terminal Lance” did a great pictorial and verbal Marine grunt’s eye review, that you might find amusing–
http://terminallance.com/2011/03/15/terminal-lance-113-battle-la/
BTW– don’t forget to send your 1911 .45 pics.
Haha, nice review. Would love to see the Marines take on zombies next.
My general opinion, probably wisdom free, is no country should ever follow the UN’s rules when it comes to running a military engagement. If France and Italy really want Ghadaffy gone they have more than enough troops and experience to eliminate him. I can’t imagine his mercanaries and few loyal soldiers would keep fighting if put up against trained troops.
The world’s insistence that the UN has a legitamate say in how we act is bizarre. The organization is incapable of the simplest actions.